"I feel like we should also incentivize farmland as a land use. It all comes down to the money and how we make that happen."
Those were the words of Deborah Luzier, a professional land use planner with GRW Engineering, who was one of three panelists participating in a discussion on land use policy options during the Indiana Land Use Summit, held last Wednesday in Danville.
Also on the panel were State Rep. Kendell Culp (R-Rensselaer) and John Katzenberger of The Nature Conservancy. Moderating the discussion was Don Lamb, director of the Indiana State Department of Agriculture.
Lamb asked the panel to list barriers to farmland preservation.
As a member of the American Planning Assn., Luzier said communities need more funding to implement comprehensive plans.
"In Indiana, I've found (that) we don't like to tell people no," Luzier said. "So, instead of saying no, we would rather incentive the things we do want to see. We do that with our comprehensive planning process, where we lay out the future of our communities. We even have funding available to prepare those comprehensive plans. But when it comes down to enacting the laws and regulations that make that all happen, I feel like that's kind of where our challenge is.
"There is no funding to support developing those laws; there's no funding to support guidance and education for our public officials—to help them put that comprehensive planning language into place. And if we're going to be incentivizing certain land uses, whether it's renewable resources, whether it's housing opportunities, I feel like we should also incentivize farmland as a land use. It all comes down to the money and how we make that happen."
During his turn with the microphone, Culp, who is also a farmer and county commissioner, said that a community's attitude toward growth can be pivotal. Some communities don't want to grow while others do. The key is having smart growth.
He added that many rural communities are losing human resources.
"When you're losing population, you're losing workforce, you're losing assessed valuation, you're losing families," he said. "What follows are businesses, grocery stores, healthcare opportunities—those are all things that make a successful community. If you're not growing, you're going backwards."
Earlier this year, two land use bills that Culp authored were signed into law. The first, HB 1132, created a land use task force to study and make recommendations concerning areas where food insecurity exists and development growth trends in rural, suburban and urban communities across Indiana. The second bill, HB 1557, directs the Indiana State Department of Agriculture to conduct an inventory of farmland lost in Indiana from 2010 to 2022.
Culp said the farmland loss inventory will look not only at lost acres but also at what those acres are lost to.
"One of the things that I want to get out of this ... is I hope that we can come up with a checklist of what I would perceive as an ideal community," Culp said. "I hope this is a discussion starter for communities around Indiana."
Katzenberger is also looking forward to the task force's findings.
"When you conserve land, you bring a value to that (land) that is increasingly important to people," he said. "We saw that during the pandemic, with people looking for places to reconnect with nature, to walk and to enjoy the natural state of Indiana. I think Rep. Culp's bill is important because we do need to understand various uses. We do need to understand how conservation fits into this."
Farmland preservation isn't a new topic of conversation in Indiana. In fact, the Indiana Legislature created a Farmland Preservation Task Force in the late 1990s that produced nine recommendations. However, only one of those—the creation of the Indiana Land Resources Council—was ever implemented.
This time around, there is a new element to the push for land use policy. Culp said consumers—the "non-agriculture folks"—are concerned about where their food comes from.
Fifteen years ago, the oil industry promoted the idea that corn grown for ethanol production was taking away acres that should be devoted to food. But that argument didn't stick, Culp said, because farmers produced an abundance of corn, enough to satisfy both ethanol and food demands.
"There's a new concern out there, again, from the general public, about where our food is going to come from," Culp said. "That's really what it comes down to is food."
The pandemic heightened those concerns, as empty supermarket shelves prompted many consumers to find alternative suppliers for food. Many found an alternative source in locally produced meat, milk, eggs and the like.
Now, as economic development projects threaten to chew up thousands of acres of farmland, there is growing support for further study of farmland loss.
Regarding incentives, Katzenberger believes conservation should be in the conversation. Too often, land use decisions involve friction between developers and conservationists. But he advocates for a wholistic approach to land use decision-making—not one based solely on profits but, rather, on what is in the best interest for a particular area.
"This is an opportunity to change the conversation around development in a way that we more fully understand what our desired outcomes are and how we get to those," he said.
From a planning perspective, Luzier said the task force study and the farmland loss inventory should be helpful.
"Where it all comes down to is we need to start putting a value on that farmland, and not just what the value is as a home site or as an economic development site," she said. "That farmland itself also has value and that's something that we need to start recognizing so we can incorporate it into the plan for our communities."
She and Culp both mentioned that many rural communities struggle with finding a balance between growth and preserving rural character. Luzier said farmland often gets overlooked.
"It comes down to guiding growth to where it's most appropriate to be located and not just in the most inexpensive piece of property," Luzier said. "A lot of times, that's what our communities are struggling with, especially in our rural communities or around those small towns."
Culp said renewable energy projects, such as wind and solar farms, can be controversial. They have the potential to pump millions of dollars into local communities, but with the development comes more traffic, noise and light pollution, and can alter the community's rural character.
"So, you're always looking for growth potential, you're looking for other economic activity," Culp said. "And so, renewable energy is coming in and saying, we want to come into your community. Very, very highly contentious. Very emotional. Some of those land use issues are very emotional. I would just say, as a local official, you have to separate the emotion from the fact."
This led the panel to conclude that working together is the key to good decision-making. Collaboration needs to take place at all levels of government, particularly as communities seek to balance economic development with farmland preservation. Culp pointed out that small towns and rural communities need growth so they can become desirable places to live and work. At the same time, Luzier said county planners need to look at farmland as more than just a "placeholder until something better comes along."
In one of the breakout sessions, Hancock County planning department director Kayla Brooks addressed that question as it relates to her county. She said one of the keys is "bringing folks to the same table" to determine "what we want to be."
According to the afternoon speaker, Indiana has some of the most productive farmland in the country. Cris Coffin, senior policy advisor for the American Farmland Trust, stated that 2,000 acres of farmland are lost every day across the U.S. Much of that loss is attributed to low density residential development, or scattered, large-lot housing.
"It's those five-acre parcels," she said, adding that agricultural land in low density residential housing is 22 times more likely to be converted to higher density development.
In a study from 2001-2016, a total of 265,000 acres of Indiana agricultural land was lost to development or was compromised in some way.
According to Coffin, projected conversion trends from 2016 through 2040 show that Indiana could lose anywhere from 260,000 acres to 600,000 acres depending on the policy response from state and local governments. She added that 71% of the conversion will occur on soils designated by AFT as "Nationally Significant" land, meaning farms that are best suited for intensive crop production with the least amount of inputs.
The hardest hit counties, according to the study, will be Hamilton, Lake and Hendricks.
Culp said the land use task force will finish its work by the first of December and is expected to issue its report and recommendations around the first of the year.
For the study on farmland loss, ISDA is working with a June 30, 2024 deadline. However, Culp said he is hoping ISDA can produce the report sooner, hopefully by the end of the year, to allow the task force to include the data in its report.